Tolerance

[YDtoad]

If this gets me banned I really don't even care.

TS doesn't deserve to live. I would kill him if I could. I only hope someone rapes you up the ***. And I hope you like it. Homosexuals are the nicest, most down to earth, real people ever, and many of them are religious despite there homosexuality. NOT ONLY HOMOSEXUALS GET AIDS MORAN. I never thought I could HATE someone, let alone someone I never met. Maybe, to decrease AIDS in America, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY GET TESTED BEFORE INTERCOURSE. AND USE PROTECTION! NOT ONLY GAYS. THATS JUST AS BAD AS SEGREGATING BLACK FROM WHITE YOU ****FACE. GO CHOKE ON A HOTDOG.

:lol:

Ok guys, what is tolerance? Because every time I see a liberal use it, it means "accept what I find ok and condemn anyone who disagrees with me!"

Now, that doesn't seem like tolerance to me. In fact, people who spout this "tolerance" nonsense tend to be the most intolerant of people--they absolutely hate those who disagree with them. Tolerance is a fraud perpetrated by liberals to silence those who disagree with them.

[Light Fantastic]

Tolerance based on the stupidity of your choices, so it is acceptable to be intolerant of theism then.

I don't think you should be killed either, no matter how much I dislike you, because you know how I feel about taking life and blah blah blah. So yeah people wishy washy about their beliefs are annoying. That means you too when you chose parts of Christianity you don't like. ^.-

[Kaleid]

Literally, tolerance would mean understanding ANY behaviour, no matter how deviant it was. Realistically, tolerance should mean accepting any behaviour that is NOT HARMFUL to anyone else. Now what's so wrong with that?

[PerpetualBurn]

Well, in its strictest sense tolerance only refers to allowing something to occur without your hinderance.

In a looser sense, people use it in terms of one's attitude - that the belief that something should not occur is in and of itself intolerant.

Now, the problem occurs in that simply being intolerant of something is not a bad thing unless it can be demonstrated that there is no good reason to be intolerant. That is to say, we should tolerate gay people, but we should not tolerate the actions of paedophiles.

Really accusing someone of intolerance as if it's an inherently bad thing is a bit of a stupid thing to do. I would probably call you a closet-case or similar.

[Jude]

Tolerance is understanding the fact that not everybody thinks or acts the same as you, and shutting the **** up about it even if it offends you.

[YDtoad]

Literally, tolerance would mean understanding ANY behaviour, no matter how deviant it was. Realistically, tolerance should mean accepting any behaviour that is NOT HARMFUL to anyone else. Now what's so wrong with that?

Well, for one, "NOT HARMFUL to anyone else" is subjective.


Tolerance is understanding the fact that not everybody thinks or acts the same as you, and shutting the **** up about it even if it offends you.


Cool so liberals who constantly insult Christians aren't tolerant, right?

[Jude]

Cool so liberals who constantly insult Christians aren't tolerant, right?

Duh

[Kaleid]

Harmful as in the sense it would cause physical harm to someone. If it causes distress to someone because it's at odds with their own personal beliefs, it's a case of getting over it and accepting that people can have differing opinions

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Tolerance is allowing other people to hold beliefs and live in ways that do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same

[Rabbi]

Tolerance is accepting and living with the fact that people are different than you.

Hitler wasn't tolerant of Jews because he killed them and stuff and you're traveling along the same path with homosexuality, bud.

I wasn't so serious about those threats, just seriously really angry that someone could be so stupid.

[YDtoad]

I wasn't so serious about those threats, just seriously really angry that someone could be so stupid.

:lol: ok sure.

[Rabbi]

Yeah like I'm seriously gonna kill you. You're being so irrational. How are people so immature. My 8 year old brother accepts homosexuality as something that is harmless, and he knows theirs nothing wrong with it. That is tolerance.

[YDtoad]

My 8 year old brother accepts that the Easter Bunny is real. Far out!

Actually I don't have an 8 year old brother. But I have an 8 year old cousin, and he accepts that the Easter Bunny is real.

Your older brother has a formulated opinion, eh?

[Rabbi]

Very funny. And yeah, he doesn't feel like homosexuals are threatening him, and he knows a few so and he is friendly with them. I never influenced him on a decision and he somewhat discovered what Gay meant before anybody explained it to him. Probably TV. Comparing the Easter Bunny to homosexuality is insulting.

[YDtoad]

Talking about an 8 year old's opinion like it's remotely relevant or significant is even moreso insulting.

Another 8 year old cousin thinks that pro wrestling is the best sport out there.

Seriously no one cares what your older brother thinks.

[PerpetualBurn]

Talking about an 8 year old's opinion like it's remotely relevant or significant is even moreso insulting.


I want to agree with this, but I think that the clash of such polar characters may destroy the universe.

[YDtoad]

I want to agree with this, but I think that the clash of such polar characters may destroy the universe.

Oh come on let's risk it, we're screwed due to global warming, anyway.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's just to darn tempting. I agree.

[Rabbi]

It's only relevant because its an example of tolerance, if this is only a thread to bash me then tolerance was the wrong name. Were you trying to get attention again?

[YDtoad]

No bashing you is a wonderful little side-dish to the main course. See: usertitle.

[PerpetualBurn]

Intolerance isn't inherently bad though.

You have to demonstrate why he should tolerate homosexuality (assuming he is intolerant, which in fairness, isn't true).

[Mr. Ron]

Tolerance is putting up with something you dislike or can't change.

[Rabbi]

You should tolerate homosexuals because they are teachers, doctors, firefighters, policemen/women, mothers, fathers, tutors, mentors, friends and family. They help so much more than they harm.

And thats true.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't see how homosexuals harm anything.

[Rabbi]

We have to be fair. I don't want to stereotype that no homosexual is bad, the rightys will have a field day. Just as they are as good as us they can be as bad as us.

[Mr. Ron]

We have to be fair. I don't want to stereotype that no homosexual is bad, the rightys will have a field day. Just as they are as good as us they can be as bad as us.

I'm referring to being homosexual. Being homosexual isn't harming anything, it's the person. It doesn't matter if you're straight or gay, if you're a bad person you're a bad person.

[Rabbi]

I love you.

[Mr. Ron]

I love you.

/backs away slowly

[asdf]

No one is completely "tollerant."

End of story.

[Cain]

Ok guys, what is tolerance? Because every time I see a liberal use it, it means "accept what I find ok and condemn anyone who disagrees with me!"

It can't possibly be true that every time you see a "liberal" use the concept of tolerance that that's the tone they take, first of all. That might be more a problem with people in general than just liberals.

Now, that doesn't seem like tolerance to me. In fact, people who spout this "tolerance" nonsense tend to be the most intolerant of people--they absolutely hate those who disagree with them. Tolerance is a fraud perpetrated by liberals to silence those who disagree with them.

How does one thing lead to the other here? Because some intolerant people say what they say in tolerance's name, then "tolerance" as a concept is a liberal fraud?

I mean, we can debate the merits of what you're saying but I take offense to your assignment of this condition solely to liberals. That's pretty lame.

[YDtoad]

The difference is that conservatives don't bother with classifying their opponents as "intolerant" when they disagree with them (yeah, they'll sometimes use "unpatriotic" and the such, but still)...

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Tolerance is allowing other people to live or think as they choose, even if you disagree with it

[asdf]

Yes, so even if "liberals" blatantly disagree with your intollerant ways, they're not preventing you from going about in your jackassery.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

However, it would be intolerant to, say, disallow neo-Nazis from marching

[asdf]

Yep.

[Cain]

The difference is that conservatives don't bother with classifying their opponents as "intolerant" when they disagree with them (yeah, they'll sometimes use "unpatriotic" and the such, but still)...

Well, I guess I'll take this from my point of view then.

I suppose you could consider me intolerant of most conservative views on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, etc. But here's why: in most of these cases (that is to say, when I come across I person I disagree with on these sorts of issues) the belief system that governs their opinions on this issues is rarely based on the most modern and updated research on these various subjects, but more often on a dogmatic perception of religious belief which is itself usually tied up with a subjective point of view on what the essence of "American culture" consists of.

In other words, the opinion, such as it is, is based entirely on a doctrine of belief and a political ideology rather than a fact or research on the issue. It is often the remarkable unwillingness to acknowledge such facts, which is ostensibly the currency of informed discussion, that pushes most liberals over the edge into polemics. It can be argued that the liberals simply have their own church and they're just as angry about any inability to convert someone to it, but that's the other thing: based as these opinions are on mostly subjective opinions and non-secular belief systems, the real problem comes from that very process and attempt to convert, manipulate, and dictate the standard on the part of those conservative forces. Then, I have a serious, serious problem that goes beyond the content of the opinion.

What sends me, and most other liberals I know, frothing at the mouth in anger is never when somebody says "I believe abortion is wrong" or even "I believe homosexuality is a deviant behavior." What gets my goat is when these people, who are facing 50% of a country that does not agree with them, try to form a law or an amendment or whatever that ONLY allows for their view to exist and outlaws the action that would be accordingly taken by someone of a different opinion. You can try to complain that it's no different when the liberals are in control but that's patently false, because legislation that legalizes abortion or legalizes gay marriage still in no way forces people to get abortions or forces people to be gay and get married to someone of the same sex. On the other side, what we have is an essentially intolerant viewpoint that is much more final, restrictive on basic freedom, and ignorant of an opposing point of view than what it would be. When such a situation is pushed for, that's when I get the most angry and the most belligerent.

EDIT: And, as a final note, since "conservatives" have consistently been on the side of such bugaboos as segregation, slavery, discrimination against anything not white, totalitarianism, xenophobia, etc., liberals tend to stereotype them because frankly the hands they've played in the past have resulted in little that's good. The often superior attitude comes from this as well. Nobody says that that's right, especially when the liberals know little about a given issue as well, but nevertheless, it's easy to see why this happens. It's not like it's a great big mystery. (Hee, hee, first long Cain post in a while).

[coe]

I like you, Cain.

[YDtoad]

I suppose you could consider me intolerant of most conservative views on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, etc. But here's why: in most of these cases (that is to say, when I come across I person I disagree with on these sorts of issues) the belief system that governs their opinions on this issues is rarely based on the most modern and updated research on these various subjects, but more often on a dogmatic perception of religious belief which is itself usually tied up with a subjective point of view on what the essence of "American culture" consists of.

:confused: Now, I realize you're probably talking about stem cells, global warming etc. (areas that I mostly agree with you on), but how does the most modern and updated research confirm or add anything new to the basic premise that homicide, taking an innocent human life, is wrong? Science doesn't tell us that; the moral code does. Yes, old dogma.



In other words, the opinion, such as it is, is based entirely on a doctrine of belief and a political ideology rather than a fact or research on the issue. It is often the remarkable unwillingness to acknowledge such facts, which is ostensibly the currency of informed discussion, that pushes most liberals over the edge into polemics. It can be argued that the liberals simply have their own church and they're just as angry about any inability to convert someone to it, but that's the other thing: based as these opinions are on mostly subjective opinions and non-secular belief systems, the real problem comes from that very process and attempt to convert, manipulate, and dictate the standard on the part of those conservative forces. Then, I have a serious, serious problem that goes beyond the content of the opinion.


You're subscribing to the notion that liberals cling to all things scientific and logical, which is false. Many liberal ideas about economics fly in the face of conventionally accepted notions. IE the 30 hour work week, a victory of liberals in France, and a complete disaster, as was postulated in advance by many economists.

Or, welfare. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan concluded, in a scientific study, that more people were joining welfare rolls (thus that the welfare system was not having its intended effect), he was attacked by, yes, liberals, as being racist, 'blaming the victim', whatnot.

Liberals are often just as illogical and recalcitrant in the face of contradictory information as conservatives. The problem with your point is that you're generalizing and idealizing. If you break it down issue by issue, then that'd potentially be another matter.

Now, I empathize with you on some issues--IE people who are misinformed about global warming. But that doesn't mean that liberals have the scientific or logical advantage



What sends me, and most other liberals I know, frothing at the mouth in anger is never when somebody says "I believe abortion is wrong" or even "I believe homosexuality is a deviant behavior." What gets my goat is when these people, who are facing 50% of a country that does not agree with them, try to form a law or an amendment or whatever that ONLY allows for their view to exist and outlaws the action that would be accordingly taken by someone of a different opinion.


All laws are based on opinions. We are of a common opinion that murder is wrong. We are of a different opinion of when life starts: I believe it is at the moment of conception, you do not. But, that means that I believe that abortion is murder, homicide, plain and simple. What am I to do, sit idly while homicide goes on and remind myself that some people disagree? Some people disagreed with those who said that the Nazi's were doing wrong by mass murdering Jews; were they to stand down because the majority of German citizens disagreed with them? No. They were to stand up for what they believe in.

And when you talk about homosexuality, you talk as if I want to criminalize homosexual relations, which I, and most every other conservative, have no interest in doing. So I think that's a bit of a straw dog.





You can try to complain that it's no different when the liberals are in control but that's patently false, because legislation that legalizes abortion or legalizes gay marriage still in no way forces people to get abortions or forces people to be gay and get married to someone of the same sex.


Legalizing gay marriage forces church run orphanages to give children to gay couples, so you're very much wrong. Legalizing gay marriage is way of forcing the liberal moral code down the throats of the rest of America.


On the other side, what we have is an essentially intolerant viewpoint that is much more final, restrictive on basic freedom,

Of which marriage is not.



EDIT: And, as a final note, since "conservatives" have consistently been on the side of such bugaboos as segregation, slavery, discrimination against anything not white, totalitarianism, xenophobia, etc., liberals tend to stereotype them because frankly the hands they've played in the past have resulted in little that's good.


The Black Panthers were a liberal group. So was the Weather Underground. So is the Animal Liberation Front. So let's not pretend that badness is somehow limited to conservatives. Christians ended slavery, fought segregation, and helped end authoritarianism in Europe.


(Hee, hee, first long Cain post in a while).

Bad news: Now I can make jokes about it again.

[CrossTheBreeze]

Tolerance is understanding the fact that not everybody thinks or acts the same as you, and shutting the **** up about it even if it offends you.

I think its fair to say that I'm tolerant. I realize that I'm still young and quite oblivious about certain aspects so I try not to be intolerant or arrogant

[Cain]

:confused: Now, I realize you're probably talking about stem cells, global warming etc. (areas that I mostly agree with you on), but how does the most modern and updated research confirm or add anything new to the basic premise that homicide, taking an innocent human life, is wrong? Science doesn't tell us that; the moral code does. Yes, old dogma.

Well, science can give us a good clue on when sentient life begins, etc, but yeah, not getting into that right now. And keep in mind many conservatives are also against contraception or the education in schools about contraception, foolishly forcing many a school board to teach abstinence-only, thus resulting in more teen pregnancies and more abortions.

You're subscribing to the notion that liberals cling to all things scientific and logical, which is false. Many liberal ideas about economics fly in the face of conventionally accepted notions. IE the 30 hour work week, a victory of liberals in France, and a complete disaster, as was postulated in advance by many economists.

I know nothing of economics and don't pretend to. So, I'm not really talking about liberals, I'm more responding in terms of my own opinions and perception of myself as a liberal.

Or, welfare. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan concluded, in a scientific study, that more people were joining welfare rolls (thus that the welfare system was not having its intended effect), he was attacked by, yes, liberals, as being racist, 'blaming the victim', whatnot.

Yes, but I'm not like that, so generalizing about all liberals serves your purpose fairly poorly. I have pretty centrist views on most issues of racism and such, and you'll never see me getting behind these people that slam people asking complex questions about racism as being racist for daring to suggest foul attitudes exist on non-white Protestant sides.

Liberals are often just as illogical and recalcitrant in the face of contradictory information as conservatives. The problem with your point is that you're generalizing and idealizing. If you break it down issue by issue, then that'd potentially be another matter.

Well, no, I'm simply generalizing about my personal, traditional reactions to a particular type of conservative, not about all conservatives versus all liberals.

Now, I empathize with you on some issues--IE people who are misinformed about global warming. But that doesn't mean that liberals have the scientific or logical advantage

No, of course not, but being as they are more likely to operate from a secular viewpoint the more likely they are to act and think based on such a scientific standpoint or logical one.

All laws are based on opinions. We are of a common opinion that murder is wrong. We are of a different opinion of when life starts: I believe it is at the moment of conception, you do not. But, that means that I believe that abortion is murder, homicide, plain and simple. What am I to do, sit idly while homicide goes on and remind myself that some people disagree? Some people disagreed with those who said that the Nazi's were doing wrong by mass murdering Jews; were they to stand down because the majority of German citizens disagreed with them? No. They were to stand up for what they believe in.

It would be unethical, in my opinion, when faced with a large group of people approaching majority or even 50% status within a population that disagrees with an issue that is of a rather ambiguous morality (that is to say, an issue in which there is no real common moral opinion or a real relevance under issues that ARE governed by common moral opinion), to try and legislate for the exclusion of one view or the other and thus illegalize any action taken on behalf of that banned view. You can hardly argue that a legalization of abortion, etc. would ban anyone from not recieving an abortion. As far as doctors being required to perform one, I see no reason why there cannot be a "conscientious objector" provision that one can apply for, because for that person, it is against his own morality.

And when you talk about homosexuality, you talk as if I want to criminalize homosexual relations, which I, and most every other conservative, have no interest in doing. So I think that's a bit of a straw dog.

Yes, but this is no basis for continuing to suppress the possibility of homosexuals getting married. One reason why homosexual relationships, particularly among men, tend to become rather frayed is because there is no hope of consummating it with a sanctified pledge. There is merely a hardly equivalent legal agreement: marriage is significant because it represents the symbolic commitment that is essential to a lasting relationship, and there is no good reason to refuse to allow homosexuals to do this.

Legalizing gay marriage forces church run orphanages to give children to gay couples, so you're very much wrong. Legalizing gay marriage is way of forcing the liberal moral code down the throats of the rest of America.

Churches have been fairly free to run their own ship. This is why we have seperation of church and state, am I right? If a church-owned orphanage wanted to differentiate I don't personally have a problem with that as long as a secular option is available. And it's not like a legalization of gay marriage would corrupt the morals of the people who already hold these opinions. The worst that would happen is, horror of horrors, we may be seeing more men holding hands with men than we do now. Get over it.

The Black Panthers were a liberal group.

The Black Panthers in their original form and in the form most thought of in popular culture are as a black nationalist group, which actually aligns them with what would by most standards be considered a radical conservative, separatist agenda, not a liberal one, so that's a mistake.

So was the Weather Underground. So is the Animal Liberation Front. So let's not pretend that badness is somehow limited to conservatives. Christians ended slavery, fought segregation, and helped end authoritarianism in Europe.

Why mention Christians and conservatives in the same breath like that? The two are by no means always equivalent and I'm not trying to suggest that they are. And I was never trying to suggest that left-wingers are excluded from potential badness. As a rule, radicalism that seeks to perpetuate its cause through terrorism, as all those groups and conservative ones like the KKK, Stormfront etc., is reprehensible regardless of the point of view and any rational person would concede that point. But in the broad strokes (yes, the GENERAL strokes), what I said is still true.

Bad news: Now I can make jokes about it again.

Be my guest, I don't really care.

[YDtoad]

Well, science can give us a good clue on when sentient life begins, etc, but yeah, not getting into that right now. And keep in mind many conservatives are also against contraception or the education in schools about contraception, foolishly forcing many a school board to teach abstinence-only, thus resulting in more teen pregnancies and more abortions.


Abstinence only has been successful in some areas, not-so-successful in others.




It would be unethical, in my opinion, when faced with a large group of people approaching majority or even 50% status within a population that disagrees with an issue that is of a rather ambiguous morality (that is to say, an issue in which there is no real common moral opinion or a real relevance under issues that ARE governed by common moral opinion), to try and legislate for the exclusion of one view or the other and thus illegalize any action taken on behalf of that banned view.


Ambiguous? I see nothing ambiguous about it, and I don't see how popular opinion at a given point has anything to do with moral clarity. 250 years ago, there was little moral ambiguity about slavery--most people accepted it as morally ok. That didn't make it ok, though.



Yes, but this is no basis for continuing to suppress the possibility of homosexuals getting married. One reason why homosexual relationships, particularly among men, tend to become rather frayed is because there is no hope of consummating it with a sanctified pledge.


Most people who argue for gay marriage also argue that there is no sanctity of marriage. Basically, at this point I'm tempted to recycle all the lines I've sen against the sanctity of marriage to counter your point. I'm sure you know them.

Anyway, I disagree with "continuing to suppress." There is no suppression any more than there is suppression of those who wish to have pleural marriage. There is no suppression because there is nothing to suppress; there is no "right" to marry nor obligation for the government to reward every type of sexual relationship with the institution of marriage. Marriage is an institution for those who engage in the most proper, most healthy relationship--monogamous, male-female.



There is merely a hardly equivalent legal agreement: marriage is significant because it represents the symbolic commitment that is essential to a lasting relationship, and there is no good reason to refuse to allow homosexuals to do this.

Marriage goes far beyond that. It is an affirmation of the lifeblood of the human race: the male-female relationship. The way humans are intended to be, atomically. Homosexuality runs against that, and there is no sane reason, let alone legal obligation, to reward people who live a deviant lifestyle.





Churches have been fairly free to run their own ship. This is why we have seperation of church and state, am I right? If a church-owned orphanage wanted to differentiate I don't personally have a problem with that as long as a secular option is available.


Church run orphanages have already been forced to close in Massachusetts as a result of the judicial tyranny.



The Black Panthers in their original form and in the form most thought of in popular culture are as a black nationalist group, which actually aligns them with what would by most standards be considered a radical conservative, separatist agenda than a liberal one, so that's a mistake.


They had the support of many liberal "progressives."



Be my guest, I don't really care.

Oh good :D

[Cain]

Ambiguous? I see nothing ambiguous about it, and I don't see how popular opinion at a given point has anything to do with moral clarity. 250 years ago, there was little moral ambiguity about slavery--most people accepted it as morally ok. That didn't make it ok, though.

Grrr I hate semantics. Okay, so the specific issue of abortion (assuming we're talking about "responsible abortion" which takes place within the first three months of development) and consequently whether sentient life begins in those first three months is a moral and scientific question that has no equivalent whatsoever to the issue of human slavery. But yeah, I understand your motivation to speak out about something that matters to you. I still wouldn't legislate it just because you think so. And besides, liberals freed the slaves.

Most people who argue for gay marriage also argue that there is no sanctity of marriage. Basically, at this point I'm tempted to recycle all the lines I've sen against the sanctity of marriage to counter your point. I'm sure you know them.

I'm not sure gay people who want to get married would EVER say that marriage has no sanctity or even that it could take place outside a church and mean the same thing to them, and in my opinion they're the only party whose opinions really matter on this. The homosexual marriage issue isn't a "lobby" in any all-encompassing liberal agenda to destroy the power of churches or anything like that, and to suggest it is pure paranoia. What is desired is a really simple thing, and there's NO good reason to refuse it, as I say again for the third time.

Anyway, I disagree with "continuing to suppress." There is no suppression any more than there is suppression of those who wish to have pleural marriage. There is no suppression because there is nothing to suppress; there is no "right" to marry nor obligation for the government to reward every type of sexual relationship with the institution of marriage. Marriage is an institution for those who engage in the most proper, most healthy relationship--monogamous, male-female.

That's ridiculous, the notion that marriage is an exclusive club. By your account you have no right to get married either, and nor do I. And who decided that the relationship is the most proper, or more healthy? Traditional, majority perspectives decided the former, and since you claim earlier to not give any credence to a traditional opinion just because it's in the majority then that's worthless. Endless psychological studies have exposed the harm of perpetuating a situation that forces homosexual relationships to take place in the dark underworld of "deviant sexual behavior" and the lack of harm to children being raised by two moms or two dads.

Once again, it is the conservative perspective on gays and its traditional dominance that has caused the most harm here, not the homosexuals themselves. If they but recieved the freedom to engage in equality with heterosexuals these perspectives would be exposed that much more fully as fictitious, which would expose yet another sacred tenet of the bible as fictitious which is why church-based forces are so political about it. Let's face it: the issue is just over what group continues to have power, a say, whatever.

Marriage goes far beyond that. It is an affirmation of the lifeblood of the human race: the male-female relationship. The way humans are intended to be, atomically. Homosexuality runs against that, and there is no sane reason, let alone legal obligation, to reward people who live a deviant lifestyle.

You sound like a social darwinist or neo-paganist or something. I always saw marriage as a consummation and affirmation of the most benevolent of human tendencies, emotions, and capabilities--that of love--but if it's actually just about babies then I ask, why have marriage at all then and just **** everything like the animals do? Oh wait, the church disagrees with that too.

Marriage is a symbolic connection of love, not a mating ritual.

Church run orphanages have already been forced to close in Massachusetts as a result of the judicial tyranny.

Tyranny, is it? That's pretty hyperbolic. And anyhow can you show me the source for that?

They had the support of many liberal "progressives."

That's because they also happened to be aligned with both the predominantly liberal counterculture and with the civil rights movement, which was a predominantly liberal movement. But the actual political basis of their stated charter was a xenophobic, nationalist, separatist "black racism," as the current socialist Black Panthers incarnation deemed it, which aligns it with traditionally conservative tendencies. The coincidence of their motivations with ostensibly liberal goals does not change what they were.

[Rabbi]

Abstinence only has been successful in some areas, not-so-successful in others.





Ambiguous? I see nothing ambiguous about it, and I don't see how popular opinion at a given point has anything to do with moral clarity. 250 years ago, there was little moral ambiguity about slavery--most people accepted it as morally ok. That didn't make it ok, though.




Most people who argue for gay marriage also argue that there is no sanctity of marriage. Basically, at this point I'm tempted to recycle all the lines I've sen against the sanctity of marriage to counter your point. I'm sure you know them.

Anyway, I disagree with "continuing to suppress." There is no suppression any more than there is suppression of those who wish to have pleural marriage. There is no suppression because there is nothing to suppress; there is no "right" to marry nor obligation for the government to reward every type of sexual relationship with the institution of marriage. Marriage is an institution for those who engage in the most proper, most healthy relationship--monogamous, male-female.




Marriage goes far beyond that. It is an affirmation of the lifeblood of the human race: the male-female relationship. The way humans are intended to be, atomically. Homosexuality runs against that, and there is no sane reason, let alone legal obligation, to reward people who live a deviant lifestyle.






Church run orphanages have already been forced to close in Massachusetts as a result of the judicial tyranny.



They had the support of many liberal "progressives."




Oh good :D

So anyone who lives a lifestyle that is unchristian should be punished?

So you believe that the Christian lifestyle is superior.

So you believe you're better than anyone that doesn't abide by the Christian doctrine?

The Old Testament clearly states the following requirements for the Jewish Messiah:

Will not be a devine being. Jesus was the son of God.
Will have great military and political power. Jesus had neither.
Will be a descendant of King David Jesus was again, "the son of God"

[Rabbi]

Abstinence only has been successful in some areas, not-so-successful in others.





Ambiguous? I see nothing ambiguous about it, and I don't see how popular opinion at a given point has anything to do with moral clarity. 250 years ago, there was little moral ambiguity about slavery--most people accepted it as morally ok. That didn't make it ok, though.




Most people who argue for gay marriage also argue that there is no sanctity of marriage. Basically, at this point I'm tempted to recycle all the lines I've sen against the sanctity of marriage to counter your point. I'm sure you know them.

Anyway, I disagree with "continuing to suppress." There is no suppression any more than there is suppression of those who wish to have pleural marriage. There is no suppression because there is nothing to suppress; there is no "right" to marry nor obligation for the government to reward every type of sexual relationship with the institution of marriage. Marriage is an institution for those who engage in the most proper, most healthy relationship--monogamous, male-female.




Marriage goes far beyond that. It is an affirmation of the lifeblood of the human race: the male-female relationship. The way humans are intended to be, atomically. Homosexuality runs against that, and there is no sane reason, let alone legal obligation, to reward people who live a deviant lifestyle.






Church run orphanages have already been forced to close in Massachusetts as a result of the judicial tyranny.



They had the support of many liberal "progressives."




Oh good :D

So anyone who lives a lifestyle that is unchristian should be punished?

So you believe that the Christian lifestyle is superior.

So you believe you're better than anyone that doesn't abide by the Christian doctrine?

The Old Testament clearly states the following requirements for the Jewish Messiah:

Will not be a devine being. Jesus was the son of God.
Will have great military and political power. Jesus had neither.
Will be a descendant of King David Jesus was again, "the son of God"
Will be a spiritual leader of the Jewish people A spiritual leader, yes. Of the Jews, no.

All the Jews that were devoutees of Jesus in when he came around some 2000 years ago ignored all this because he said he was Gods son. So anything you say is so because of the bible is negated because of this.

http://www.conncoll.edu/academics/departments/relstudies/290/judaism/jewishmessiah.html

Proof

[Cain]

Double post friend. Use the edit button or delete your first one.

EDIT: Whoops, I guess Serenity got banned and that's his ban account. lol I take it back

[Scuba_Steve]

:lol:

Ok guys, what is tolerance? Because every time I see a liberal use it, it means "accept what I find ok and condemn anyone who disagrees with me!"


funny, that's what happens when fundie christians use it too. They certainly arent liberal.




Nice try with the blatant generalization though.

[Apollyon]

:lol:

Ok guys, what is tolerance? Because every time I see a liberal use it, it means "accept what I find ok and condemn anyone who disagrees with me!"

Now, that doesn't seem like tolerance to me. In fact, people who spout this "tolerance" nonsense tend to be the most intolerant of people--they absolutely hate those who disagree with them. Tolerance is a fraud perpetrated by liberals to silence those who disagree with them.

tolerance is the act of accepting and accommodating all types of people regardless of gender sexual preference color of skin etc

steve you are very intolerant in some ways but so are many liberals no one is completely tolerant of anyone

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing. If you were tolerant, you could still not like gay people for whatever reason, but you still tolerate them

[YDtoad]

Okay, so the specific issue of abortion (assuming we're talking about "responsible abortion" which takes place within the first three months of development) and consequently whether sentient life begins in those first three months is a moral and scientific question that has no equivalent whatsoever to the issue of human slavery.

If we were talking about sentience, yes, but that's your stipulation on the matter; the pro life movement is based on the principle that life begins at the point of conception, before the point of sentience is even feasible. And that's where I would draw some comparison: there was a principle, held by few, back then, that blacks were not an inferior race. Regardless of the quantity of scientific evidence disproving the notion that blacks are inferior in some way, racially, it was a moral belief, that people of all races were equal, just as it is a moral belief that life begins at the point of conception.


But yeah, I understand your motivation to speak out about something that matters to you. I still wouldn't legislate it just because you think so.


Well of course you wouldn't, you don't agree with me on the issue, so I wouldn't expect you to :p


And besides, liberals freed the slaves.


Yes, true, but those same progressives then morphed into the temperance movement, and that didn't exactly go over so well.


I'm not sure gay people who want to get married would EVER say that marriage has no sanctity or even that it could take place outside a church and mean the same thing to them, and in my opinion they're the only party whose opinions really matter on this. The homosexual marriage issue isn't a "lobby" in any all-encompassing liberal agenda to destroy the power of churches or anything like that, and to suggest it is pure paranoia. What is desired is a really simple thing, and there's NO good reason to refuse it, as I say again for the third time.


And for the third time, I'll disagree :p Ok, let me state it another way: We have certain institutions, certain benefits, to encourage certain things--the ideal behavior. Military service comes with a lot of benefits--duty free stores, preferential hiring, discounted air travel, etc. This is not available to those who don't qualify for military service, including the obese, the mentally/physically handicapped, etc. even though, even for some obese people, the factors that disqualify them are out of their control.

Is this fair? Even if homosexuality were completely determined by genetics, it doesn't change the fundamental condition of the sexual persuasion: against the natural continuation of the human race. And no, that's not saying that everyone's going to turn gay if we legalize marriage. But we have institutions to encourage ideal behavior, and reward it. And the ideal behavior is a monogamous male/female relationship.


And who decided that the relationship is the most proper, or more healthy?


Whatever force determined human anatomy, beit God, Mother Nature, whatever.


Endless psychological studies have exposed the harm of perpetuating a situation that forces homosexual relationships to take place in the dark underworld of "deviant sexual behavior" and the lack of harm to children being raised by two moms or two dads.


Now I realize you're not saying this, but it sounds like you're creating a scenario where either gays can marry each other, or they have to live like it's Iran. Gay couples live together, sleep together, openly go out together, etc. in America. There is no suppression. There is also no reward for behavior that is not the ideal for the human race.



Once again, it is the conservative perspective on gays and its traditional dominance that has caused the most harm here, not the homosexuals themselves.


One problem with this is that even in the scandinavian countries, which are a haven for gays, drug use, sexual promiscuity etc. remain very high. And that'll always be the case here in America, too.




You sound like a social darwinist or neo-paganist or something. I always saw marriage as a consummation and affirmation of the most benevolent of human tendencies, emotions, and capabilities--that of love--but if it's actually just about babies then I ask, why have marriage at all then and just **** everything like the animals do? Oh wait, the church disagrees with that too.


Marriage is a symbolic connection of love, not a mating ritual.


But that's your opinion on marriage, and it's bringing individual perceptions on the matter. Basically, it's saying that marriage should represent your moral outlook, as opposed to mine. My moral outlook is that homosexuality is wrong because it's against the Bible, but my arguments against it aren't linked to the Bible--essentially, I'm arguing against gay marriage from a purely secular level, thus sounding much more a social darwinist than a Christian.

You see it as an affirmation of love, I see it as a reward the government sanctions for the most beneficial relationship in society.


Tyranny, is it? That's pretty hyperbolic. And anyhow can you show me the source for that?


Oh I agree, tyranny is a little bit of hyperbole I threw in for the rhetorical effect, but the story is legit. Here's an article on it: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/15/church_units_not_penalized_for_refusing_gay_adopti ons/




That's because they also happened to be aligned with both the predominantly liberal counterculture and with the civil rights movement, which was a predominantly liberal movement. But the actual political basis of their stated charter was a xenophobic, nationalist, separatist "black racism," as the current socialist Black Panthers incarnation deemed it, which aligns it with traditionally conservative tendencies. The coincidence of their motivations with ostensibly liberal goals does not change what they were.

I don't see the connection of nationalism/xenophobia with conservatism :\

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I don't see the connection of nationalism/xenophobia with conservatism :\

That's because you're short sighted as anything

[Apollyon]

I don't see the connection of nationalism/xenophobia with conservatism :\

the only difference between a republican and a fascist is their government

they hold a lot of the same values as one another and tend to execute their beliefs in the same ways

[Cain]

If we were talking about sentience, yes, but that's your stipulation on the matter; the pro life movement is based on the principle that life begins at the point of conception, before the point of sentience is even feasible. And that's where I would draw some comparison: there was a principle, held by few, back then, that blacks were not an inferior race. Regardless of the quantity of scientific evidence disproving the notion that blacks are inferior in some way, racially, it was a moral belief, that people of all races were equal, just as it is a moral belief that life begins at the point of conception.

Wait. "Regardless of the quantity of scientific evidence disproving the notion that blacks are inferior, it was a moral belief that all races are equal?" So regardless of the fact that it's a FACT that blacks are equal, it's also a moral belief that blacks are equal? So what? There's a certain degree of dissent over the question of whether life begins at conception and that's the whole point. You draw no comparison with slavery because the moral stance is derived from a true world fact that goes against an ignorant discriminatory opinion. There is no such possibility for the pro-life movement as yet. This paragraph was remarkably unclear, though, maybe you should rewrite it so I can understand exactly why you're still drawing that comparison.

And for the third time, I'll disagree :p Ok, let me state it another way: We have certain institutions, certain benefits, to encourage certain things--the ideal behavior. Military service comes with a lot of benefits--duty free stores, preferential hiring, discounted air travel, etc. This is not available to those who don't qualify for military service, including the obese, the mentally/physically handicapped, etc. even though, even for some obese people, the factors that disqualify them are out of their control.

How does marriage equate to a military service? Do you personally view marriage entirely in terms of government-awarded benefits anyhow?

Is this fair? Even if homosexuality were completely determined by genetics, it doesn't change the fundamental condition of the sexual persuasion: against the natural continuation of the human race. And no, that's not saying that everyone's going to turn gay if we legalize marriage. But we have institutions to encourage ideal behavior, and reward it. And the ideal behavior is a monogamous male/female relationship.

Again, Christian Western forces decreed that monogamous male/female relationships are "ideal behavior," and once again, your logic is incredibly tenuous. You act as though because homosexual couples cannot create children they are incapable of nurturing them to themselves become excellent human beings. There is no reason why they cannot marry and then adopt, or use artificial insemination in the case of female couples, and then raise those children as their own and have them be good, successful people. Is it really realistic to suppose that in today's modern society there would be a serious effect on our population to allow homosexual couples to marry? Would the human race stop continuing by allowing such a thing? We have evolved a society that is largely beyond purely natural development and yet you invoke nature's supposed ideality to support the rejection of one small group of people from participating in what is anyhow a man-made institution. I understand you are coming at this from a secular viewpoint in order to avoid sounding dogmatic but the fact is that the secular arguments simply don't hold up in the slightest.

Whatever force determined human anatomy, beit God, Mother Nature, whatever.

That's ridiculous. The best way to achieve what you say is the purpose of that anatomy--the continuation of the human race--is for monogamy to be completely ignored. Men should mate with as many women as possible and they should have as many children as possible. But your ideal civilization doesn't allow for that either. This selective invocation of certain natural "laws" when the same lines of reasoning are ignored in other areas of your social worldview is a perfect representation of personal prejudice, not fact. Simple as that.

Now I realize you're not saying this, but it sounds like you're creating a scenario where either gays can marry each other, or they have to live like it's Iran. Gay couples live together, sleep together, openly go out together, etc. in America. There is no suppression. There is also no reward for behavior that is not the ideal for the human race.

Look, this line of reasoning is so preposterous that I can barely believe you think that. Marriage cannot only mean a government award for ideal behavior to you, just a "reward." You argue that there is a sanctity to marriage and yet you argue as though it's a ****ing tax contract. You dehumanize it in your argument even as you argue that for my concerns to be implemented would strip marriage of its only human meaning. This is backward, and symptomatic, frankly, of the impossibility of successfully making a secular case against gay marriage.


One problem with this is that even in the scandinavian countries, which are a haven for gays, drug use, sexual promiscuity etc. remain very high. And that'll always be the case here in America, too.

Source, please, and they'd better be able to successfully explain the causal link between homosexuality and drug use, because no source Serenity's EVER posted has done so.

But that's your opinion on marriage, and it's bringing individual perceptions on the matter. Basically, it's saying that marriage should represent your moral outlook, as opposed to mine.

Do you disagree? Marriage is a personal commitment between two people so personal opinions on its significance is perfectly relevant: marriage's primary significance is in the world of the personal, not public, world, no matter which way you look at it.

My moral outlook is that homosexuality is wrong because it's against the Bible, but my arguments against it aren't linked to the Bible--essentially, I'm arguing against gay marriage from a purely secular level, thus sounding much more a social darwinist than a Christian.

Yes but as I said the secular arguments are basically so much muddle. They do not successfully prove your case. You can't make secular cases for religious argument.

You see it as an affirmation of love, I see it as a reward the government sanctions for the most beneficial relationship in society.

Fair enough, but then your views on marriage cannot possibly claim to be religious, which means you should be by most standards VERY confused.

Oh I agree, tyranny is a little bit of hyperbole I threw in for the rhetorical effect, but the story is legit. Here's an article on it: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/15/church_units_not_penalized_for_refusing_gay_adopti ons/

Page not found, bud.

I don't see the connection of nationalism/xenophobia with conservatism :\

Conservatism: from the Latin conservare: to keep, guard, observe. Sounds pretty buttoned-up and not too open to the outside, eh?

The broad-based definition of conservatism is "A focus on the preservation of one's social ecology," which lends itself to broad-based nationalistic, xenophobic, and rejectionist tendencies far more than liberalism. If you can't see the connection it's because you're blind as a bat.

[Hababi]

they hold a lot of the same values as one another and tend to execute their beliefs in the same ways


Care to elaborate?

Wait. "Regardless of the quantity of scientific evidence disproving the notion that blacks are inferior, it was a moral belief that all races are equal?" So regardless of the fact that it's a FACT that blacks are equal, it's also a moral belief that blacks are equal? So what? There's a certain degree of dissent over the question of whether life begins at conception and that's the whole point. You draw no comparison with slavery because the moral stance is derived from a true world fact that goes against an ignorant discriminatory opinion. There is no such possibility for the pro-life movement as yet. This paragraph was remarkably unclear, though, maybe you should rewrite it so I can understand exactly why you're still drawing that comparison.

There is a fact that abortion involves the termination of a biologically unique human unit. The philosophy on what constitutes humanness is the moral debate and it was no less prevalent in the era of slavery.



How does marriage equate to a military service? Do you personally view marriage entirely in terms of government-awarded benefits anyhow?


As I'll get at later (I'm replying to this post backwards, essentially), I differentiate individual perception with governmental perception. Because so long as you're arguing individual perceptions, you're saying, "I want my moral compass to guide things."

And military service, like marriage, is an institution, not a right.



You act as though because homosexual couples cannot create children they are incapable of nurturing them to themselves become excellent human beings.
There is no reason why they cannot marry and then adopt, or use artificial insemination in the case of female couples, and then raise those children as their own and have them be good, successful people.


Oh, there's plenty of reasons. But this involves the realization that children should grow up clearly understanding that the normal, healthy state of the human race is heterosexuality.




That's ridiculous. The best way to achieve what you say is the purpose of that anatomy--the continuation of the human race--is for monogamy to be completely ignored. Men should mate with as many women as possible and they should have as many children as possible.

STD's and overpopulation. The healthiest, for the individual, is to find one sexual partner, and remain mated for life.



Look, this line of reasoning is so preposterous that I can barely believe you think that. Marriage cannot only mean a government award for ideal behavior to you, just a "reward."


It's not about what it means to me. It's about what it means to society. Marriage doesn't mean the same to me as it does an atheist. That doesn't matter. The greater implication, as it deals with for governmental policy, is what it means to society.


You argue that there is a sanctity to marriage and yet you argue as though it's a ****ing tax contract. You dehumanize it in your argument even as you argue that for my concerns to be implemented would strip marriage of its only human meaning. This is backward, and symptomatic, frankly, of the impossibility of successfully making a secular case against gay marriage.




Source, please, and they'd better be able to successfully explain the causal link between homosexuality and drug use, because no source Serenity's EVER posted has done so.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02



Do you disagree? Marriage is a personal commitment between two people


Why two? Isn't that just your opinion? What about a man who wants to marry another man but a woman, too, have the best of both worlds?



so personal opinions on its significance is perfectly relevant: marriage's primary significance is in the world of the personal, not public, world, no matter which way you look at it.


But that's just your opinion on it. All that jazz about a personal commitment between two people is nice and romantic and such until you factor in the legal, societal aspect of it. Marriage is an institution set up by society for a specific reason, and that's not just rewarding any persons for finding the person(s) they want to have sex with for the rest of their (sexually functional) lives.


Yes but as I said the secular arguments are basically so much muddle. They do not successfully prove your case. You can't make secular cases for religious argument.


But I'm not making a religious argument :p I'm taking marriage completely out of the religious context, as it stands for governments. A government doesn't legislate morality nor does it legislate one person's definition of "fairness." A government legislates based on what is reasonably best for society. And that's traditional marriage and traditional relationships.


Fair enough, but then your views on marriage cannot possibly claim to be religious, which means you should be by most standards VERY confused.


Very confused about what?


Page not found, bud.


Well then I have to go search again and hopefully this will work:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

Yeah it's weekly standard but hey that's what happens when the Boston Globe link gets screwed up :p


Conservatism: from the Latin conservare: to keep, guard, observe. Sounds pretty buttoned-up and not too open to the outside, eh?

The broad-based definition of conservatism is "A focus on the preservation of one's social ecology," which lends itself to broad-based nationalistic, xenophobic, and rejectionist tendencies far more than liberalism. If you can't see the connection it's because you're blind as a bat.

Well if we're going to play it that way, then liberalism leads itself to internal "cleansings", since liberalism aspires to a greater progress and sometimes you need to, well, clean out the old. Like Pol Pot.